"Is the age of the Bayonet over? An example through the Marines of 1/1"--The Firearms Blog. The author argues that the era of using or even needing a bayonet is over, based on its general lack of use. He notes that the last American bayonet charge was in 1951 in the Korean conflict. He also notes that although the British have used bayonets a couple times, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan did not require it because engagements were often at hundreds of meters. The author acknowledges that bayonets might be useful if one ran out of ammunition, but that "there has very rarely ever been a U.S. force that has gotten low on ammunition in OIF/OEF and could not have been resupplied."

I'm going to have to be a bit of a naysayer on this. Bayonets were definitely a credible weapon in the days of muzzle-loaded weapons (e.g., the Battle of Bunker Hill, which was essentially lost because the Revolutionary troops lacked bayonets). Where we see arguments concerning their use begins with World War I. There was quite a bit of debate after the war concerning the efficacy of the bayonet because statistics showed that there were very few casualties brought to aid stations or hospitals with bayonet wounds. The conclusion drawn was that the lack of bayoneted casualties was because bayonets were hardly ever used. The same reasoning applied to studies of wounding in World War II.

There were some dissenting voices, however, that argued that the discrepancy was because bayonet wounds were so grievous that most of the victims died, and therefore the lack of wounded is because so few survived such an attack.

I have to say that the more I have read personal accounts from those two conflicts, the more I tend to agree with the latter position. The reason I do so is the frequent mention of men killed by bayonets in the personal accounts of soldiers during trench raids in World War I, or in the accounts of German soldiers that survived the D-Day landings.

I would guess that bayonets would see more use in close quarter combat today if (a) the soldiers had serviceable bayonets instead of the puny knives that are generally issued (it is notable that although bayonets once sported blades well over a foot long, most today have blades of only 5 or 6 inches) and (b) were more familiar and comfortable using the weapon. Also, just because the conflicts an Afghanistan and Iraq did not see American troops unable to be resupplied with ammunition, or engagements were primarily at longer distances, does not mean that in some future war, there might not be fighting among thick hedgerows, pillboxes, or the ruins of buildings (a la, the Battle of Stalingrad), or that the United States will enjoy the air superiority allowing troops to be resupplied wherever they might be. I'm not calling for a return to bayonet charges, but suggesting that bayonet training and the provision of a decent bayonet should not be abandoned.

"The deadliest bug: DNA confirms identity of bacteria behind London's Great Plague in the 17th Century"--Daily Mail. According to the article, DNA analysis of victims found in a mass grave found traces of the bubonic plague bacteria Yersinia pestis. I don't think that it has ever been seriously disputed that the London plague was bubonic plague as the recorded symptoms matched that of more modern outbreaks of plague. The question has always been earlier outbreaks which were much more aggressive. For instance, while the spread of the London Plague could be averaged out to mere feet per day, the spread of the Black Plague averaged out to miles per day, and the victims were much more likely to die. The real issue is to why the difference in virulence, which is still disputed. Were survivors of the series of plagues that struck Europe between 1300 and 1700 simply more immune to plague, did y. pestis evolve to be less lethal, or where there different strains?

Bad translation or Freudian slip? "'Germany Will Remain Germany'"--The Atlantic. Chancellor Merkel is reported to have addressed concerns of the mass influx of immigrants from the Middle East and Africa by assuring Germans that "Germany will remain Germany." I don't think that the average German is worried that Germany will cease to exist as a political entity, as much as he or she is concerned about the survival of the German culture and people. To address the latter concern, Merkel should have been assuring that "Germany will remain German," but, tellingly, she did not.

Related: "Globalism: The Religion of Empire"--The American Thinker. The key point: "The Christian vision sees the Church universal as God’s kingdom ruling the earth. The religion of globalism sees an earthly, utopian world order in which all men pay allegiance to elite priests who rule over a World City without national borders." The purpose of globalism is to reduce the individual to a fungible economic unit.

"Hungry Venezuelans Chase Maduro"--The American Interest. According to the press, "President Nicolás Maduro was chased at a routine political event by a crowd of angry protesters banging on pots and yelling that they were hungry...." The beginning of a preference cascade against Maduro. I suspect that things will come to a head in Venezuela very soon.

"Glock 17M Recall Update"--The Firearms Blog. I wonder if we will hear people stating that they will never buy another gun from Glock, much as we heard after Remington's recall of the R51?

A shot across the bow at long-range hunting: "THE BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB ON FAIR CHASE" (PDF). "The Club defines fair chase as 'the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.'" Basically, according to the position paper, this comes down to whether the animal has the opportunity to detect the hunter and escape or evade. Thus, the Club indicates that shooting animals that are trapped in a fence or bogged down is not fair chase; shooting an animal that is habitualized to humans and, therefore, has lost its fear of humans is not fair chase; and, most significantly and the probable reason for the Club to issue this document, "[s]imilarly, even if technology can be legally used to take longer and longer shots, a fair chase hunter would choose to stalk an animal to a proven, effective range instead of testing the limits of equipment and shooting skills."

No comments:

Post a Comment

Survival/Prepping News:

Translate

About This Blog...

This is a blog discussing disaster preparation and survival, especially in light of end time prophecy. It also examines political and other events as they may relate or bear on end time prophecy or the practice of survivalism and/or prepping. The contents of this blog are intended for entertainment and/or academic purposes only. Please consult with a professional or expert before implementing or using any ideas or techniques discussed or presented in this blog.

FTC Disclaimer

All products, books, etc. reviewed on this blog were purchased by me and I received no compensation for their review. All links to particular web-sites or domains are provided for convenience only, and should not be construed as an endorsement. I do not receive compensation for referrals or links.